A judge recently ordered the site's owners to pay $13 million to 22 women.

Share this story

The last few months have been a disaster for the people behind the GirlsDoPorn website. Last summer saw the start of trial in a lawsuit 22 women filed against site owner Michael Pratt and two other men. That case resulted in a $13 million verdict against the men earlier this month.

In October, the federal government charged Pratt and others with criminal sex trafficking. Pratt also faces child-pornography charges after he flew a 16-year-old to Southern California. Pratt fled the country—possibly back to his native New Zealand. He is now wanted by the FBI.

Yet throughout all that turmoil, the GirlsDoPorn site stayed up, offering visitors access to explicit videos of women who may have been coerced into shooting them. Indeed, as late as October, in the midst of the civil trial, the site was still shooting and posting new videos.

But now porn-industry blogger Mike South notes that the GirlsDoPorn website has finally gone offline. It seems to have disappeared from the Web sometime last week.

Further Reading

This doesn't mean GirlsDoPorn content has disappeared from the Web, however. GirlsDoPorn video clips remain readily available from other pornographic video sites.

The operators of GirlsDoPorn are in legal trouble because dozens of women say they were tricked and coerced into appearing in videos on the site. The site attracted women by telling them that their videos would only be sold on DVD to wealthy customers overseas and would never appear online. That was a lie.

Once women arrived in San Diego for their photo shoots, they were plied with drugs and alcohol and pressured to sign documents without reading them. Women were initially offered as much as $5,000 to do the shoots, only to have those amounts arbitrarily reduced once they arrived to shoot a video.

Some women said the men physically blocked the exit to their hotel room during the shoots. Some accused one of the men of raping them before or after the on-camera shoot.

Promoted Comments

That guy has been oddly obsessed with all the GDP articles on Ars. It's either one of the dudes from GDP or one of them hired a troll "service" similar to the ones Ars investigated in the mid 2019 article.

Or it's just a complete and utter lunatic, but it's hard to believe someone could be that shitty.

Complete and utter lunatic.

One of the aggravating factors in this whole GirlsDoPorn thing was that the site has had for years a devoted online community whose main purpose is to identify every woman with their real name and to create lists. And the intersection with the incel community is very instructive.

In its early years, the site had the women take some alias and tell a fake name at the beginning of the video.After a couple of years, they decided to keep the models anonymous. They hoped they would make piracy more difficult by making individual videos harder to label and to find on P2P networks, and they also wanted to maintain the "authenticity" of the woman being totally "herself" in the video. The site was quite aware that some of the women had already been identified by high school and college friends, and they were quick to embrace humiliation as a commercial argument, "Hey, this bitch was dumb enough to tell everything about her life in her interview. What a moron!"That actually resulted in people making lists of the videos by numbering the episodes. It actually contributed to their obsessiveness over the women. This wasn't about "Sophia" or "Lysette" anymore, it was about "E172" and who she really was, because she wasn't anymore a wannabe porn actress, she was a girl next door who had decided to secretly shoot a single porn video. E172's video was mentioned in a tweet posted by someone from a State college. Let's see what his high school was, and who went there at the same time, etc.

At some point, the site booked a pageant contestant who turned out later to be a minor celebrity. The site was instrumental into leaking stuff about her to confirm that it was indeed her. Around this time, they found their "groove". They got a new main male "talent" who handled a lot of the recruiting and who systematized the approach they had already started to toy with: the "DVD for billionaire Australian collector" scam, the "reference girls" who would certify that they had never suffered any problem for shooting their own video three years ago, etc. Their business model wasn't to feature women "about to make their first adult video". They started to target women who would have never done a video otherwise. Which often requires a ton of lying and threatening to get there.Meanwhile, the online community became stronger and bolder, and their focus on a few themes was actually more revealing about the men who were part of it than the women they were trying to belittle. "Who was in a relationship when they made the video?" "Post cheerleading pictures of the GDP". For these men, it's a given that almost every woman is a slut, and will have sex for money when given the opportunity. And the more unlikely, the better. They have this obsession for the "girls next door". A popular, well-adjusted student during her high school days would drive them crazy, while they wouldn't care about someone who already was a stripper or an escort.These men were basically trying to connect all their own relationship failures during their life to these young women. They regard themselves as sensitive, honest dudes. If they were overlooked or rejected by women years or decades ago, it wasn't at all because they acted as creeps or were crippled by their own fears, it's because these girls, like the girls in these videos, would pick money over a genuine connection. The GDP models were a way for them to scapegoat their own failures in life onto somebody.That's why the newly found emphasis from GDP on humiliation and degradation clicked with them right away, and a few of them were so eager to shame women they didn't even know. Which often resulted in online stalking and harassment.

GDP had an ambivalent relationship with that community. On one hand, they would try to get the boards that hosted the conversations closed, first because they had links to streaming sites, then because the lawsuit had started and they were trying to look respectable. They were also trying to to drive conversations over their own boards. On the other hand, it's almost certain that they would anonymously leak a few clues, a few pictures or part of the name if some model mentioned legal action to get her video deleted, knowing perfectly that the community would do the rest of the work.Then, when the lawsuit was already well advanced, some legal documents were made public. The community combed them to identify the 22 plaintiffs, officially for research purposes. The list gets regularly posted at 4chan by people who have access to it. There, people regard the "Jane Does" as greedy whores who are trying to take advantage of a fledging porn site, and that the lawsuit could get other sites shut down. Once again, they disregard the fact that GDP's methods make almost every other shady porn site look like a good citizen.

tl;dr Whatever gets exposed about the criminal ways the GirlsDoPorn website handled their models, there will always be men willing to blame the women for everything, because they are a convenient way to explain their own shortcomings in life or because they're afraid that their other favorite websites will be sued and shut down.

This is just the Porn actresses #Meetoo way to get more money out of producers. If you look at many of the videos they produced the actress was asked what she is doing here. They always gladly say "It's their 1st time shooting adult porno or video." Many of them look like they are very excited to do this and getting paid couple of Gs of course.

So, your argument that this case is without merit is that... the actresses looked excited. Um... you do know how acting works, right? You do know that porn is acting, right? That it's not actually real?

So if someone says that they were coerced, if there is a video of them smiling under that coercion, we should just ignore the evidence of coercion because the coercion worked.

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's reward the criminals because their crime worked.

The ruling goes into some detail about how the Jane Does were coached to act during those parts of the videos, both where they claim e.g. not to have been drinking (which is false in many cases), and interview in general. It also notes that some parts were filmed multiple times because the producers were not satisfied with the answers. So it would be a mistake to take the videos as an accurate representation of what was going on. It was guided and edited to present the scenario the producer wanted to present.

197 Reader Comments

I do believe there are also criminal proceedings against these men. I cant say if rape is one of the charges but I still stand by that statement whether they are ever convicted of it or not.

There are criminal charges against these men. I don't believe rape is one of the charges.These men are terrible people. I think they probably deserve to go to jail.

My only point is that the women involved are not exactly innocent.

The women involved in this didn’t simply sign contracts of their own informed free will. The suspects carefully and meticulously applied maximum psychological pressure over a sustained period of time in order to pressure the women in to signing because they felt they had no choice. They were deliberately isolated from family and friends, in most cases far from home, and many of them had no money to afford a return trip. They felt the only way out would be to sign and take part. Essentially they were coerced in to signing without any of them ever realising what was really going on.

I’m not qualified to comment on any US jurisdiction but certainly where I am lack of informed consent, especially since the suspects went to great lengths to obfuscate the true purpose of what was happening, would certainly qualify as rape. It’s not at all surprising that none of them went to the police: the fact that they signed “contracts” was yet another measure to ensure that the women would feel shame if they ever began to doubt the motives of the organisers.

This isn’t some case of regret after the fact, this is a case involving deliberate, cynical manipulation.

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

The “isolation” from family and friends was mostly due to the fact that the women did not want anyone in their personal life to know what they were doing. Not even their boyfriends.

“ Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”- CS Lewis

So what?

Even if we pretend the women knew exactly what they were going to film and made the decision to do so without duress, which is a mischaracterization but for the sake of argument, they would still have been the victims of criminal fraud. Performing in porn does not mean that was morally ok. That is legal behavior and as such they would and should still have the full protection of law. You're suggesting that, as soon as they made that decision, they were terrible people and deserved whatever happened to them. That is indefensible.

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

The “isolation” from family and friends was mostly due to the fact that the women did not want anyone in their personal life to know what they were doing. Not even their boyfriends.

“ Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”- CS Lewis

So if you were invited to make some porn by a hot young girl and were to be paid, you sign the contract and go, but it is really a bunch of big middle aged guys using you to make porn, and they only give you like $20.

They have a contract, and they had months to prepare, so do not think you are getting out easily in a physical sense...

All good? No problem with a bit of a bait and switch in your porn making? Perhaps you are chaste, or only engage in unions sanctioned by the bureaucracy of the god of your choice?

It just does not seem like their fraud, conspiracy, and rape really equals making a bit of porn. There are also a lot of shady porn companies out there, so managing to screw up badly enough that they pierce the veil and jail you over it is pretty bad. We could call that a spectacular business failure.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

The case is about those victims what were not told they would be shooting porn, who did not want to shoot porn, who even tried to leave the hotel rooms and were physically blocked, or were threatened with being stranded with no resources in a strange city because their promised return ticket was withheld.

That is a mischaracterization.If these videos were never released on the Internet most of the plaintiffs would have no complaint about what transpired.

This is so much bullshit, it's not even funny. Read the ruling. In particular, the part that reads "FINDINGS OF FACT". ON TOP OF the fact that all the women were assured that the videos would not go online, be shown in the US, or be seen by anyone who knew them, it's a fact that these women were forced to sign contracts that contained language that they had not previously agreed to, and were buried in difficult to understand language. They were coerced and threatened to the point that the judge found the contracts invalid.

Besides going back on their assurances that the videos wouldn't be posted online or seen in the US, they deliberately distributed the real names of these women, including sending links to the videos to people they knew. Family, friends, and other people they knew on social media.

Quote:

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

This is a lie. They were often lured to San Diego, on the pretense of shooting clothed modeling videos/photos, and then refused to either let them out of the room they were in until they agreed to shoot the porn, or would refuse to provide their pre-agreed ticket home. These were facts determined in court, by witnesses and evidence provided.

From the ruling:

Quote:

Neither the Craigslist ads nor these websites contain any indication that nudity or pornography is involved. (10/2/19 Trial Tr. 143:26-144:19 [Wolfe testifying this is because Craigslist removes ads related to pornography].) Contrary to Defendants' explanation, the Court finds that Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; Defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video. This is consistent with Defendants' depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.

I have no idea why you seem determined to defend these sacks of shit by spreading their lies.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

The case is about those victims what were not told they would be shooting porn, who did not want to shoot porn, who even tried to leave the hotel rooms and were physically blocked, or were threatened with being stranded with no resources in a strange city because their promised return ticket was withheld.

That is a mischaracterization.If these videos were never released on the Internet most of the plaintiffs would have no complaint about what transpired.

This is so much bullshit, it's not even funny. Read the ruling. In particular, the part that reads "FINDINGS OF FACT". ON TOP OF the fact that all the women were assured that the videos would not go online, be shown in the US, or be seen by anyone who knew them, it's a fact that these women were forced to sign contracts that contained language that they had not previously agreed to, and were buried in difficult to understand language. They were coerced and threatened to the point that the judge found the contracts invalid.

Besides going back on their assurances that the videos wouldn't be posted online or seen in the US, they deliberately distributed the real names of these women, including sending links to the videos to people they knew. Family, friends, and other people they knew on social media.

Quote:

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

This is a lie. They were often lured to San Diego, on the pretense of shooting clothed modeling videos/photos, and then refused to either let them out of the room they were in until they agreed to shoot the porn, or would refuse to provide their pre-agreed ticket home. These were facts determined in court, by witnesses and evidence provided.

From the ruling:

Quote:

Neither the Craigslist ads nor these websites contain any indication that nudity or pornography is involved. (10/2/19 Trial Tr. 143:26-144:19 [Wolfe testifying this is because Craigslist removes ads related to pornography].) Contrary to Defendants' explanation, the Court finds that Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; Defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video. This is consistent with Defendants' depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.

I have no idea why you seem determined to defend these sacks of shit by spreading their lies.

Some people just like to show the world they can't read either the article or the lawsuit details, but are damned sure they have a strong opinion about it.

That guy has been oddly obsessed with all the GDP articles on Ars. It's either one of the dudes from GDP or one of them hired a troll "service" similar to the ones Ars investigated in the mid 2019 article.

Or it's just a complete and utter lunatic, but it's hard to believe someone could be that shitty.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

The case is about those victims what were not told they would be shooting porn, who did not want to shoot porn, who even tried to leave the hotel rooms and were physically blocked, or were threatened with being stranded with no resources in a strange city because their promised return ticket was withheld.

That is a mischaracterization.If these videos were never released on the Internet most of the plaintiffs would have no complaint about what transpired.

This is so much bullshit, it's not even funny. Read the ruling. In particular, the part that reads "FINDINGS OF FACT". ON TOP OF the fact that all the women were assured that the videos would not go online, be shown in the US, or be seen by anyone who knew them, it's a fact that these women were forced to sign contracts that contained language that they had not previously agreed to, and were buried in difficult to understand language. They were coerced and threatened to the point that the judge found the contracts invalid.

Besides going back on their assurances that the videos wouldn't be posted online or seen in the US, they deliberately distributed the real names of these women, including sending links to the videos to people they knew. Family, friends, and other people they knew on social media.

Quote:

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

This is a lie. They were often lured to San Diego, on the pretense of shooting clothed modeling videos/photos, and then refused to either let them out of the room they were in until they agreed to shoot the porn, or would refuse to provide their pre-agreed ticket home. These were facts determined in court, by witnesses and evidence provided.

From the ruling:

Quote:

Neither the Craigslist ads nor these websites contain any indication that nudity or pornography is involved. (10/2/19 Trial Tr. 143:26-144:19 [Wolfe testifying this is because Craigslist removes ads related to pornography].) Contrary to Defendants' explanation, the Court finds that Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; Defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video. This is consistent with Defendants' depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.

I have no idea why you seem determined to defend these sacks of shit by spreading their lies.

Some people just like to show the world they can't read either the article or the lawsuit details, but are damned sure they have a strong opinion about it.

That guy has been oddly obsessed with all the GDP articles on Ars. It's either one of the dudes from GDP or one of them hired a troll "service" similar to the ones Ars investigated in the mid 2019 article.

Or it's just a complete and utter lunatic, but it's hard to believe someone could be that shitty.

What these guys did was horrible, underhanded, sneaky, manipulative, etc., the psychological turmoil foisted upon these women is beyond horrid, and I hope someone is there with rotting fruit for when they find Pratt and drag him here.

What these guys did was horrible, underhanded, sneaky, manipulative, etc., the psychological turmoil foisted upon these women is beyond horrid, and I hope someone is there with rotting fruit for when they find Pratt and drag him here.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

It doesnt matter if a few were willing. Every single other one of them were raped. These men belong in jail for a very long time.

No one has been charged with rape. As far as I know, none of the women involved went to the police and said they were raped. There'd be plenty of video evidence to support such a charge, if warranted.

I do believe there are also criminal proceedings against these men. I cant say if rape is one of the charges but I still stand by that statement whether they are ever convicted of it or not.

There are criminal charges against these men. I don't believe rape is one of the charges.These men are terrible people. I think they probably deserve to go to jail.

My only point is that the women involved are not exactly innocent.

Performing in porn videos is legal. Unlawful imprisonment, rape, coercion, fraud, and fleeing justice are not. Also sounds like at least some of the women showed up neither intending nor expecting to appear in porn.

The sex trafficking rings are really starting to become obvious in society at this point, the more of these get exposed and broken up, the better. It's a big victory for women's rights when these things get taken down. Even as a man, I can see these things, it's sad that all this happened for so long. I can't begin to imagine what some of these women had to go through. I hope they manage to heal their hearts.

What these guys did was horrible, underhanded, sneaky, manipulative, etc., the psychological turmoil foisted upon these women is beyond horrid, and I hope someone is there with rotting fruit for when they find Pratt and drag him here.

So yeah, rape is one of the charges. And unless it can be shown that some women were complicit in the exploitation and assault of others, I'll assume all these women are in fact innocent. Whether you agree morally with porn or not, nothing they did was illegal and they had every right to expect the terms of these exchanges as described would be honored.

When I say the women were not exactly innocent.. I'm talking in a moral, ethical sense, not a legal one.

These women have done nothing that ought to be considered morally, ethically wrong.

Doing porn is not immoral, and thinking that it is is a pretty scummy thing. Hiding the fact that they're doing porn is necessary in our shitty society precisely because of people like you. That is, attitudes like yours are why they had to do this.

These women were innocent in every sense of that term, with regard to this situation. Declaring them to not be innocent merely shows your own moral failings.

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

The “isolation” from family and friends was mostly due to the fact that the women did not want anyone in their personal life to know what they were doing. Not even their boyfriends.

“ Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”- CS Lewis

So if you were invited to make some porn by a hot young girl and were to be paid, you sign the contract and go, but it is really a bunch of big middle aged guys using you to make porn, and they only give you like $20.

They have a contract, and they had months to prepare, so do not think you are getting out easily in a physical sense...

All good? No problem with a bit of a bait and switch in your porn making? Perhaps you are chaste, or only engage in unions sanctioned by the bureaucracy of the god of your choice?

It just does not seem like their fraud, conspiracy, and rape really equals making a bit of porn. There are also a lot of shady porn companies out there, so managing to screw up badly enough that they pierce the veil and jail you over it is pretty bad. We could call that a spectacular business failure.

If *I* was invited to make porn, I would decline, full stop. I am a married man, and I respect the vows I made.

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

The “isolation” from family and friends was mostly due to the fact that the women did not want anyone in their personal life to know what they were doing. Not even their boyfriends.

“ Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”- CS Lewis

So if you were invited to make some porn by a hot young girl and were to be paid, you sign the contract and go, but it is really a bunch of big middle aged guys using you to make porn, and they only give you like $20.

They have a contract, and they had months to prepare, so do not think you are getting out easily in a physical sense...

All good? No problem with a bit of a bait and switch in your porn making? Perhaps you are chaste, or only engage in unions sanctioned by the bureaucracy of the god of your choice?

It just does not seem like their fraud, conspiracy, and rape really equals making a bit of porn. There are also a lot of shady porn companies out there, so managing to screw up badly enough that they pierce the veil and jail you over it is pretty bad. We could call that a spectacular business failure.

If *I* was invited to make porn, I would decline, full stop. I am a married man, and I respect the vows I made.

So yeah, rape is one of the charges. And unless it can be shown that some women were complicit in the exploitation and assault of others, I'll assume all these women are in fact innocent. Whether you agree morally with porn or not, nothing they did was illegal and they had every right to expect the terms of these exchanges as described would be honored.

When I say the women were not exactly innocent.. I'm talking in a moral, ethical sense, not a legal one.

These women have done nothing that ought to be considered morally, ethically wrong.

Doing porn is not immoral, and thinking that it is is a pretty scummy thing. Hiding the fact that they're doing porn is necessary in our shitty society precisely because of people like you. That is, attitudes like yours are why they had to do this.

These women were innocent in every sense of that term, with regard to this situation. Declaring them to not be innocent merely shows your own moral failings.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you. Especially when these women are doing it behind the backs of their spouses or boyfriends.

Most of them didn't go there to do porn. They were detained and coerced into doing it after they got there. That's kidnapping and rape. But hey, they decided to have the sex to get out of a really shitty situation, so they deserved it right?

So yeah, rape is one of the charges. And unless it can be shown that some women were complicit in the exploitation and assault of others, I'll assume all these women are in fact innocent. Whether you agree morally with porn or not, nothing they did was illegal and they had every right to expect the terms of these exchanges as described would be honored.

When I say the women were not exactly innocent.. I'm talking in a moral, ethical sense, not a legal one.

These women have done nothing that ought to be considered morally, ethically wrong.

Doing porn is not immoral, and thinking that it is is a pretty scummy thing. Hiding the fact that they're doing porn is necessary in our shitty society precisely because of people like you. That is, attitudes like yours are why they had to do this.

These women were innocent in every sense of that term, with regard to this situation. Declaring them to not be innocent merely shows your own moral failings.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you. Especially when these women are doing it behind the backs of their spouses or boyfriends.

And just to add, the reason why these things don't get reported enough and they ended up with so many victims, is because of people like you who insist on shaming the victim. Maybe if they didn't have to worry about these types of attitudes it would have been reported right away and many of these women would not have had to go through this.

So yeah, rape is one of the charges. And unless it can be shown that some women were complicit in the exploitation and assault of others, I'll assume all these women are in fact innocent. Whether you agree morally with porn or not, nothing they did was illegal and they had every right to expect the terms of these exchanges as described would be honored.

When I say the women were not exactly innocent.. I'm talking in a moral, ethical sense, not a legal one.

These women have done nothing that ought to be considered morally, ethically wrong.

Doing porn is not immoral, and thinking that it is is a pretty scummy thing. Hiding the fact that they're doing porn is necessary in our shitty society precisely because of people like you. That is, attitudes like yours are why they had to do this.

These women were innocent in every sense of that term, with regard to this situation. Declaring them to not be innocent merely shows your own moral failings.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you. Especially when these women are doing it behind the backs of their spouses or boyfriends.

Most of them didn't go there to do porn. They were detained and coerced into doing it after they got there. That's kidnapping and rape. But hey, they decided to have the sex to get out of a really shitty situation, so they deserved it right?

This conversation is going around in circles.What you say is not true.Most of them, when they got on the plane, knew they were going there to shoot porn. Read the ruling again if you doubt me.

So your position is all these women are lying and the court got it wrong? Cause that's what you're saying.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

Hey Aurich, this account right here.

some new information could have been added in follow up articles but the original stated it was a case of the girls being told the videos would not be released in the US, which then later the videos indeed were.

The women involved in this didn’t simply sign contracts of their own informed free will. The suspects carefully and meticulously applied maximum psychological pressure over a sustained period of time in order to pressure the women in to signing because they felt they had no choice. They were deliberately isolated from family and friends, in most cases far from home, and many of them had no money to afford a return trip. They felt the only way out would be to sign and take part. Essentially they were coerced in to signing without any of them ever realising what was really going on.

I’m not qualified to comment on any US jurisdiction but certainly where I am lack of informed consent, especially since the suspects went to great lengths to obfuscate the true purpose of what was happening, would certainly qualify as rape. It’s not at all surprising that none of them went to the police: the fact that they signed “contracts” was yet another measure to ensure that the women would feel shame if they ever began to doubt the motives of the organisers.

This isn’t some case of regret after the fact, this is a case involving deliberate, cynical manipulation.

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

The “isolation” from family and friends was mostly due to the fact that the women did not want anyone in their personal life to know what they were doing. Not even their boyfriends.

“ Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”- CS Lewis

So what?

Even if we pretend the women knew exactly what they were going to film and made the decision to do so without duress, which is a mischaracterization but for the sake of argument, they would still have been the victims of criminal fraud. Performing in porn does not mean that was morally ok. That is legal behavior and as such they would and should still have the full protection of law. You're suggesting that, as soon as they made that decision, they were terrible people and deserved whatever happened to them. That is indefensible.

They deserved what happened to them in the sense of the consequences to their personal lives from being caught.

One of the women was a law student and claimed this affected her career. Another claimed her boyfriend shunned her after he found out. These consequences stem directly from the women’s decision to shoot porn.

The consequences would not have occurred if it was not for a campaign of lies, duress, and in some cases providing drugs and alcohol. That's the bottom line for me.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

The case is about those victims what were not told they would be shooting porn, who did not want to shoot porn, who even tried to leave the hotel rooms and were physically blocked, or were threatened with being stranded with no resources in a strange city because their promised return ticket was withheld.

That is a mischaracterization.If these videos were never released on the Internet most of the plaintiffs would have no complaint about what transpired.

This is so much bullshit, it's not even funny. Read the ruling. In particular, the part that reads "FINDINGS OF FACT". ON TOP OF the fact that all the women were assured that the videos would not go online, be shown in the US, or be seen by anyone who knew them, it's a fact that these women were forced to sign contracts that contained language that they had not previously agreed to, and were buried in difficult to understand language. They were coerced and threatened to the point that the judge found the contracts invalid.

Besides going back on their assurances that the videos wouldn't be posted online or seen in the US, they deliberately distributed the real names of these women, including sending links to the videos to people they knew. Family, friends, and other people they knew on social media.

Quote:

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

This is a lie. They were often lured to San Diego, on the pretense of shooting clothed modeling videos/photos, and then refused to either let them out of the room they were in until they agreed to shoot the porn, or would refuse to provide their pre-agreed ticket home. These were facts determined in court, by witnesses and evidence provided.

From the ruling:

Quote:

Neither the Craigslist ads nor these websites contain any indication that nudity or pornography is involved. (10/2/19 Trial Tr. 143:26-144:19 [Wolfe testifying this is because Craigslist removes ads related to pornography].) Contrary to Defendants' explanation, the Court finds that Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; Defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video. This is consistent with Defendants' depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.

I have no idea why you seem determined to defend these sacks of shit by spreading their lies.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

The case is about those victims what were not told they would be shooting porn, who did not want to shoot porn, who even tried to leave the hotel rooms and were physically blocked, or were threatened with being stranded with no resources in a strange city because their promised return ticket was withheld.

That is a mischaracterization.If these videos were never released on the Internet most of the plaintiffs would have no complaint about what transpired.

This is so much bullshit, it's not even funny. Read the ruling. In particular, the part that reads "FINDINGS OF FACT". ON TOP OF the fact that all the women were assured that the videos would not go online, be shown in the US, or be seen by anyone who knew them, it's a fact that these women were forced to sign contracts that contained language that they had not previously agreed to, and were buried in difficult to understand language. They were coerced and threatened to the point that the judge found the contracts invalid.

Besides going back on their assurances that the videos wouldn't be posted online or seen in the US, they deliberately distributed the real names of these women, including sending links to the videos to people they knew. Family, friends, and other people they knew on social media.

Quote:

In most cases, the women got on a plane knowing they were going there to shoot porn.

This is a lie. They were often lured to San Diego, on the pretense of shooting clothed modeling videos/photos, and then refused to either let them out of the room they were in until they agreed to shoot the porn, or would refuse to provide their pre-agreed ticket home. These were facts determined in court, by witnesses and evidence provided.

From the ruling:

Quote:

Neither the Craigslist ads nor these websites contain any indication that nudity or pornography is involved. (10/2/19 Trial Tr. 143:26-144:19 [Wolfe testifying this is because Craigslist removes ads related to pornography].) Contrary to Defendants' explanation, the Court finds that Defendants deliberately used deceptive advertisements and websites to mislead women about the nature of the work; Defendants aimed to cast a wider net to attract a certain type of applicant-women who would not intentionally respond to a solicitation to appear in a pornographic video. This is consistent with Defendants' depiction of GDP models as making a one-time-only stint into pornography.

I have no idea why you seem determined to defend these sacks of shit by spreading their lies.

Maybe he's just a prick.

We know what he is, now we're just haggling over size.

OK, Making porn is not illegal, immoral, or unethical.

Being naïve is not illegal, immoral, or unethical.

Coercing people into doing something they don't want to do, lying about what you're asking them to do, and misrepresenting what's going on is illegal, immoral, and unethical.

Regardless your personal opinion, the women involved are at worst "guilty" of one or both of the first two. The GDP people are guilty of the last. (Oh, and also rape.)

Claiming that "they deserved it" is victim blaming, and says more about you than it does about them. Mainly that you are a bad person who hides behind their "moral code" when questioned about their prejudice.

Actions have consequences.Most of the plaintiffs knew they were shooting porn and agreed to do it. In some cases, the plaintiffs even went back a second time to film more porn.

Their only objection is that the videos were released on the Internet. They're mad they got caught.

Hey Aurich, this account right here.

some new information could have been added in follow up articles but the original stated it was a case of the girls being told the videos would not be released in the US, which then later the videos indeed were.

believe this is where he is getting his info from.

I know, he's been conveniently overlooking this in every article thread on the subject. Check his post history, he's not here for a good faith discussion. It's honestly not even close.